Author
Topic: Position look: QB (Read 967 times)

With the 90 man roster filled and for the most part is set until training camp (yes there will be a +/- or two along the way), I thought I would start a positional thread on a different position every few days and give people a chance to discuss each group. Starting this out with the QB's, well because everything in the NFL starts with the QB.

Depth Chart: Aaron Rodgers, DeShone Kizer, Tim Boyle, Manny Wilkins

Aaron Rodgers - Some of you may have heard of this guy before, ranks No. 1 in NFL history in career passer rating (103.79), interception percentage (1.59) and TD/INT ratio (4.01, 313/78). Two time NFL Most Valuable Player. Has a fair chance to make the roster.

DeShone Kizer - Was acquired by the Packers in a trade with the Cleveland Browns last year and ended up winning the back up QB spot coming out of training camp. Was a 15 game starter as a rookie for the Browns. Still a raw and developing player.

Tim Boyle - Signed by Green Bay as an undrafted free agent in 2018 and surprised most everyone by how well he played in the pre season. Showed to be a gritty and tough passer who was willing to stand in the pocket and make the tough throws. Year two should be interesting to watch.

Manny Wilkins - Signed as an undrafted free agent in 2019. Played in 40 games and was the starting quarterback for his final three seasons. He completed 704 of 1,114 pass attempts (63.2 pct.) for 8,624 yards and 52 touchdowns. Wilkins finished his career with the fifth-most passing yards in school history, the fourth-most completions and sixth-most touchdown passes. He also ran the ball for 1,035 yards and 20 TDs. Athletic QB who can make plays with both his arm and his legs.

The first question the Packers will face at cut down is do they keep 2 or 3 QB's on the 53 man roster? Last year the trade for Kizer locked him in for a year anyways to a roster spot and then Boyle played lights out for the first three pre season games, making Hundley available to trade. Does Boyle make a second year jump and now put Kizer in the trade market? Wilkins was a very effective QB in college, does he show enough to keep as a 3rd QB?

Does it end up,A.) Rodgers and KizerB.) Rodgers and Boyle C.) Rodgers, Kizer and BoyleD.) Rodgers, Boyle and WilkinsE.) Other

It is all yet to be determined and the players play will decide the end result, but it should be interesting to watch play out.

This may be another deal where "getting used to new system" will be another reason ("excuse" has a negative pejorative ring to it) for not necessarily showing a big step, but still being accepted as "young", "learning".....

Kind of harder to draw conclusions and project to future performance based on present-camp-performance when adjusting to new system, and when all the other receivers in camp are doing the same.

My guess is that Kizer and Boyle both stick, and that Wilkins is gunning for a practice-squad spot.

This may be another deal where "getting used to new system" will be another reason ("excuse" has a negative pejorative ring to it) for not necessarily showing a big step, but still being accepted as "young", "learning".....

Kind of harder to draw conclusions and project to future performance based on present-camp-performance when adjusting to new system, and when all the other receivers in camp are doing the same.

My guess is that Kizer and Boyle both stick, and that Wilkins is gunning for a practice-squad spot.

Agree it will be a little trickier waters to navigate with the new system be put in place, but in the end it will be players making plays that will make the end decision.

We are looking at new history to be made, but if past history means anything the Packers will only keep 3 QB's on the 63. If 3 on the 53 are kept, none have been kept on the practice squad. If 2 are kept on the 53, 1 has been kept on the practice squad. That is if the past history means anything.

Question: Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's? If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers?

This Q comes to mind because last year when Kizer came in, he several times alluded to how the Packers coached different footwork than he'd been taught at Cleveland and Notre Dame. So I'm kinda wondering how true or significant that is. Was Cleveland and Notre Dame standard, and Packers had some unusual, perhaps innovative way? Or did Cleveland and Notre Dame have something weird or old-fashioned, and the Packers way is perfectly normal and good and what most modern teams would teach? Or is whatever difference there is really subtle, and Kizer was kind of exaggerating the magnitude of the adjustment?

**IF** there is a real and non-trivial difference, then I'm again curious what MLF and Getsy will want to do, and if there is a shift whether that will help or hurt Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle? I could imagine for Kizer, doing things one way, then spending a year under MM trying to adjust to a different way, then readjusting to another way again might be kind of awkward.

May also be that Getsy understands the pros and cons, and a real guy can use a variety of footwork in a variety of conditions. Any NBA basketball player or NFL pass rusher has a bunch of footwork variations. So, maybe it's both, rather than one of the other? MM and the Packers have some great ideas that Rodgers and Kizer/Boyle and Getsy are all familiar with, for certain situations; and maybe they are all good with normal stepping-into-the-throw footwork that works when you've got a secure pocket and a receiver getting open in a predictable zone?

Anyway, will be interesting if we here any references to this issue.

We all know that Rodgers has emphasized the importance of practicing quick real-time-real-game-speed throwing, on the run, off-balance, back-foot, etc., since he realizes how few of his throws really are classic stepping-into-it footwork throws.

Question: Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's? If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers?

This Q comes to mind because last year when Kizer came in, he several times alluded to how the Packers coached different footwork than he'd been taught at Cleveland and Notre Dame. So I'm kinda wondering how true or significant that is. Was Cleveland and Notre Dame standard, and Packers had some unusual, perhaps innovative way? Or did Cleveland and Notre Dame have something weird or old-fashioned, and the Packers way is perfectly normal and good and what most modern teams would teach? Or is whatever difference there is really subtle, and Kizer was kind of exaggerating the magnitude of the adjustment?

**IF** there is a real and non-trivial difference, then I'm again curious what MLF and Getsy will want to do, and if there is a shift whether that will help or hurt Rodgers, Kizer, and Boyle? I could imagine for Kizer, doing things one way, then spending a year under MM trying to adjust to a different way, then readjusting to another way again might be kind of awkward.

May also be that Getsy understands the pros and cons, and a real guy can use a variety of footwork in a variety of conditions. Any NBA basketball player or NFL pass rusher has a bunch of footwork variations. So, maybe it's both, rather than one of the other? MM and the Packers have some great ideas that Rodgers and Kizer/Boyle and Getsy are all familiar with, for certain situations; and maybe they are all good with normal stepping-into-the-throw footwork that works when you've got a secure pocket and a receiver getting open in a predictable zone?

Anyway, will be interesting if we here any references to this issue.

We all know that Rodgers has emphasized the importance of practicing quick real-time-real-game-speed throwing, on the run, off-balance, back-foot, etc., since he realizes how few of his throws really are classic stepping-into-it footwork throws.

Good points craig about footwork. I believe MM was forward thinking with his work with QB's and minimizing wasted motions though footwork. I am only guessing here like all of us, but I would think the current work being done on footwork is play specific to MLF playbook and minimizing wasted motion also.

Question: Did MM's Packers have unusual footwork coaching for QB's? If so, will MLF and Getsy coach the possibly non-standard MM footwork, perhaps that Getsy is familiar with from his previous run as a quality-control coach with Packers?

MLF was on staff at Notre Dame when Kizer was a freshman (I believe), so he has some/limited knowlwdge about Kizer already.

Getsy started with GB as offensive quality control, but the 2016-2017 seasons he was the WR's coach. Not sure if that matters when it comes to QB's and there footwork, but he will coach "what" and "how" MLF wants him to coach.

Is Gurekunst going to effectively his trade for Kizer was not a good move? If so, then perhaps Boyle could be backup and Wilkins could be stashed on the practice squad, If Gutekunst and MLF believe that Kizer can become an effective backup, and can design a game plan that plays to his strengths, then they'll again probably keep Kizer. Also, if MLF prefers Boyle as a backup and thinks Wilkins has more upside, would Gutekunst allow Kizer to be cut/traded? This of course goes back to the dynamics of who how much decisiion making power MLF has. Anyway, here is a scouting report on Wilkins. It's a mixed bag, and he definitely doesn't seem ready to start or backup AR, but has "potential".

Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

Logged

The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game. They just ran out of time.-Vince Lombardi

The pre-season will be the main event for Boyle verses Kizer. Multiple teams will want to see which QB is cut. I see two QBs on the active squad this year and one on the PS. There won't be three QBs protected this year. I hope that if something does sideline Rodgers for a game or two that the backup can still keep them in the game and hope the defense makes some plays. It couldn't happen for the past 4 years, but maybe this year we see the defense show their teeth. It will be hard enough to win with Rodgers...winning many games with either Kizer or Boyle will be difficult.

Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

OK. But if Gutekunst "strongly suggests" that Kizer remain on the roster?

Final roster decisions are process decisions with lots of input from multiple people at the table. Bottom line, from Wolf, to Sherman, to Thompson, to Gutekunst the final call on rosters is led by the General Manager

OK. But if Gutekunst "strongly suggests" that Kizer remain on the roster?

This really isn't that hard. Gutekunst has the final say on the 53. He will continuously monitor all the players through training camp, he will meet with his personnel staff and coaching staff several times to field opinions on each player and make his decisions from there. Many position coaches along with the HC will pound the table for their guys, but not everyone can be kept. In the end if Gutekunst believes it is in the best interest of the Green Bay Packers to keep Kizer, he will keep Kizer.

The pre-season will be the main event for Boyle verses Kizer. Multiple teams will want to see which QB is cut. I see two QBs on the active squad this year and one on the PS. There won't be three QBs protected this year. I hope that if something does sideline Rodgers for a game or two that the backup can still keep them in the game and hope the defense makes some plays. It couldn't happen for the past 4 years, but maybe this year we see the defense show their teeth. It will be hard enough to win with Rodgers...winning many games with either Kizer or Boyle will be difficult.

Good post Hands. Agree that multiple teams will be watching the Packers QB situation and be looking to pick up a leftover. With Seattle signing Geno Smith they are probably out as a trade partner, but Jacksonville and Dallas are both light a servable backup and may be a trade partner at the cutdown. Minnesota also is in need, but I don't think a trade there is an option.

I don't care much about the current QB2. The Packers are unlikely to have a QB2 good enough to do well if Rodgers goes down..........at least, not beyond the odd game or two.

What I do care about is the succession plan, post Rodgers. I believe the Packers should be thinking about his successor years in advance of that successor seeing the field. They (the Packers) need to identify who they want as early as possible. If the guy they want is good (and he should be) then you will need a very high pick to secure him.

That means trying to get extra first round pick(s) in the year you think he becomes available, which takes some pre-planning in the previous year, or even two. I'd also budget at least one year where the rookie can (mostly) sit and learn and get better, while AR shows by example how to be a QB in the NFL.

So, for example, you trade down from your first rounder in 2020 (like the Packers did with New Orleans) for a future first, or give up a second round pick (maybe with a sweetner) for a first the following year, anything really for an extra first rounder, next year. Ideally you want more than that, an extra second as well, maybe. Then, because of your forethought, in the year 'the man' becomes available you have trade up capital to spend. You draft your guy in 2021, let him (mostly) sit, as he learns the playbook and work on his game. In 2022 he is ready to go (hopefully).

Of course this process doesn't have to start in 2020, it could start a year, or two, or three later than that, it all depends on when 'the guy' is likely to come out, and it might need some fancy footwork to get things to align (and how Rodgers is playing, will impact that as well). The whole point is that you start manoeuvring years before the guy you want sees the field.

This kind of pre-planning isn't worth it for most players, but a QB is so crucial to a team, that a good one is worth the effort.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 08:09:17 AM by OneTwoSixFive »

Logged

(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

They blew it this year. Could have gotten Rosen for #2 pick and we would have been set. Missed opportunity to land a potential franchise QB on the cheap. We will be hard pressed to get a guy going forward as I expect the Packers to be drafting late over the next few years. This was the year to grab one either Lock or Rosen. Next transition will likely be a tough one.